Reference Material

Disclaimer, Copyright

The U.S.S. Mariner is in no way affiliated with, condoned or given any notice by the Seattle Mariners baseball team, who have their own website. Similarly, we have no association with the ownership group or any businesses related to the Mariners. All article text is written by the authors, all pictures are taken by the authors, who retain copyright to their works. No copying or reproduction of any content here, photographic or otherwise, is authorized. Please email us if you wish to reproduce our work.

Future Forty 3.0

After a too long absence, and thanks to the hard work of Conor Glassey, the Future Forty has returned. It’s also been overhauled, as you’ll notice from surfing over there.

Obviously, the newest thing is the graphical representation of the prospects. Rather than just an endless string of numbers in a list, I figured it would be helpful to see these guys on a chart that show just how close to the majors each one is and how we’re projecting their talent to turn into production. Since the horizontal axis is based on Wins Above Replacement, the best prospects will be found on the right side of the graph.

We’ve also got a table below the charts that contains all the relevant data, as well as links to each player’s FanGraphs page. I think you’ll find those helpful.

Okay, so that’s the stuff about the Future Forty. But, obviously, you guys care a lot more about the players on it, so let’s dive into that.

From looking at the two charts, there should be a couple obvious things that stand out; there’s a pretty strong group of position players that are near major league ready, but there’s next to no pitching for the next few years. In the next two years, the M’s could potentially introduce three or four new everyday players into their line-up, but there isn’t an impact pitching prospect anywhere close to the majors. There are some talented arms in the system, but they’re years away from helping.

Carlos Triunfel remains the system’s best prospect. You’re going to hear some negative stuff about him from Baseball America, because the Cal League coaches weren’t very impressed with his work ethic, especially during his miserable first half. But he made some pretty big strides in the second half, and he’s beginning to grow into his power. He hit a monster home run off Max Scherzer in the Arizona Fall League a few weeks ago, and there aren’t many kids his age with his hitting ability. His long term position is still a question mark (second or third base remain most likely), and he needs to continue to take steps forward with his power and attitude, but he’s the most likely star in the system.

After Triunfel, there’s the group of guys we talked about quite a bit during the 2010 roster series – Clement, Balentien, Halman, Saunders, Moore, Valbuena, Tuiasosopo, and Raben. None of them look like all-stars, but that’s a pretty nice crop of position players to rebuild around. Even if you only get two or three good players from the entire group, it’s a head start to having every day players that can contribute for close to the league minimum.

Down the line, there’s another solid group of talented youngsters, as the M’s continue to reap the rewards of their international scouting. DeJesus, Noriega, Nunez, and Morban are all well thought of and were signed for significant figures by the M’s. They’re all a long way from Seattle, but they represent the best of the wave after the one coming.

On the pitching side of things, it’s Aumont and a bunch of questions. And, to be fair, Aumont still has quite a bit of work to do himself. There are guys with good velocity, such as Juan Ramirez, and guys like Michael Pineda who opened some eyes in 2008, but they all come with legitimate concerns. Thankfully, Fontaine was able to reload with a quantity of pitching arms in the draft, as often the best way to develop a good major league pitcher is to just accumulate a lot of minor league pitchers. The attrition of young arms is so high that you’d certainly rather have an organization with position player strength, like the Mariners currently have, but you don’t want to be this weak in upper level pitching talent either. The Bedard trade really killed the system’s close-to-the-majors pitching depth.

Overall, though, the farm system is in good shape. It’s probably in the 10-15 range in baseball, and with potentially four picks in the top 50 this summer along with the hope for maturation in some of the younger prospects, it’s pretty easy to imagine the M’s sitting here with a top 5 farm system a year from now. The major league team stinks, but there’s help on the way.

Tags:

Comments

29 Responses to “Future Forty 3.0”

The Ancient Mariner on
November 6th, 2008 8:07 am

I’m feeling even more out of touch now, though. When did we move from Wisconsin to Clinton? And how did we end up with a player in Pulaski?

SequimRealEstate on
November 6th, 2008 8:12 am

I love the graph’s. Very nice. Thank you.

Mike Snow on
November 6th, 2008 8:17 am

When did we move from Wisconsin to Clinton? And how did we end up with a player in Pulaski?

Clinton replaces Wisconsin next year as part of the minor league affiliate shuffle. Pulaski was recently added as a second short-season affiliate, 2008 was the first season the Mariners were there.

shemberry on
November 6th, 2008 8:57 am

Dave,

Do you think Dennis Raben is someone who could exceed the expectations of the Future Forty? He was highly regarded just a year ago, with his plate discipline and power potential he seems like he could be better than many expect.

MarinerDan on
November 6th, 2008 8:59 am

Thanks for the 40 update, Dave and Connor.

Can you let us know where Chris Tillman and Tony Butler would have ranked had they not been sent to Baltimore?

(Because I am a masochist.)

b__rider on
November 6th, 2008 9:05 am

Question: Do the projected WAR numbers for position players include defense? Because a good offensive player may not be useful if he can’t play good defense.

Mike Snow on
November 6th, 2008 9:06 am

Somebody’s bound to ask this, so – where would Josh Fields show up on the list/chart? How would that compare to the theoretical pick we get if he doesn’t sign?

Shizane on
November 6th, 2008 9:14 am

I think it would be helpful to have a current/known MLB player next to the WAR shown on the graph. Obviously, we know that comparing the players style, pitches, etc. wouldn’t be prudent, but it would help to see that a 2.5 WAR for a pitcher means a Matt Garza-type of player as compared to a 1.0 WAR which could be a Joe Blanton-type of player(just an example).

mr.smartypants on
November 6th, 2008 9:37 am

Can you talk a little bit more about WAR and what it means? I understand for the most part how it’s calculated but it’s hard for me to understand how good a 3.0 WAR player is. If there’s already a post about this, could someone link to it? If not, could this go into consideration for an upcoming post?

So Carlos Triunfel is still the undisputed #1 in the system in your mind, Dave?

Is it too early to just slot the anonymous #2 June draft pick in as an elite prospect to make us feel a little better about the system?

DarkKnight1680 on
November 6th, 2008 10:09 am

Quick quibble: The graph has Wilson at 1.25 WAR while the chart lists 1.0.

This is also the guy I have my eye on at AAA next season. He was a high pick (I think) not that long ago and had a very solid power year last season (and god knows the Mariners could use a power bat one of these days). Could stand to cut down on the K’s but was certainly better in 08 than 07 in that regard.

Do you think Dennis Raben is someone who could exceed the expectations of the Future Forty?

Everyone on the list could exceed the expectations. We’re not listing their absolute maximum potential, but instead, the likely projection of their value on the assumption that they develop at their current rate. Clearly, some guys will fail to develop and stagnate in the minors, while others will do better than we could have imagined – don’t look at the WAR rating as a ceiling.

As for Raben specifically, the questions surrounding him involve his ability to hit for average and translate his raw power into usable game power. A 1B/OF who hits .250/.330/.450 isn’t all that valuable, so he’s going to have to show he can hit .280 or higher in order to be an impact bat.

Can you let us know where Chris Tillman and Tony Butler would have ranked had they not been sent to Baltimore?

Tillman would probably be a 3.0 WAR/2010 guy, and Butler would be more like 2.0 WAR/2011 guy. Tillman took a pretty solid step forward this year, and despite my previously stated preferences for Butler, Tillman’s the better prospect right now.

Question: Do the projected WAR numbers for position players include defense? Because a good offensive player may not be useful if he canâ€™t play good defense.

WAR includes defense and position adjustments. It’s a total measure of a player’s value.

where would Josh Fields show up on the list/chart? How would that compare to the theoretical pick we get if he doesnâ€™t sign?

Fields would probably be a 2.0 WAR/2009. Close to the majors, limited potential due to his role as a reliever. I’d imagine the projected WAR/ETA of the 22nd pick in the 2009 draft would be more like 2.5 WAR/2012, so you’d be trading some present value for more upside.

I think it would be helpful to have a current/known MLB player next to the WAR shown on the graph.

Wilson was a high pick, but actually predates Fontaine. Mike’s been kicking around this system for 8 years, and was drafted in 2001!

Still, I’m looking forward to seeing him too – in addition to injuries, the M’s pushed him to switch-hit, which they then abandoned last year. He’s been on and off the 40 man a few times, but will be protected this year as they moved him back onto the 40 man last week.

Dave,

I like the graphs, and the WAR numbers as opposed to the more mushy “reward” from years past. But given the scale here, it necessarily clumps prospects together – there’s a big group at 2.5 and 2.0 WAR. This may be a feature and not a bug, but have you/Conor thought about how you’d rank the 2.5 guys (Halman, De Jesus, Ramirez, Moore)?

Also, what have you heard about Saunders’ defense?
On the relievers, it seems that the guys further from the majors rank higher – I can’t think why Shawn Kelley would rank 1.5 wins ahead of Jimenez. Kelley is older and pitched mostly in AA, whereas Jimenez had a 3.60 FIP and a tRA+ of 105 in the AL. Is Kelley really about the equal of Josh Fields? I’d actually love this, as this org has a hole at the underdog-reliever-from-Austin-Peay spot.
Finally (seriously), is Kenta Suda really that far ahead of fellow AZL guys Yao Wen Chang and Jeroen De Haas? The first two had no semblance of command, whereas the latter has the projectable frame and GB tendencies… what’s separating Suda at this point?

And Aumont threw less than most. His childhood … issues … kept him off the field a lot.

TheVanillaGorilla on
November 6th, 2008 11:05 am

Where would league average be? About 1.5 WAR?

Typical Idiot Fan on
November 6th, 2008 11:32 am

About how close are we to declaring Mangini a bust? Unless he’s got some slick glove work about him, I don’t even know how you can project him as a 1.00 WAR possibility now.

wabbles on
November 6th, 2008 11:43 am

So how might this Future Forty be different now and in the years to come with a new general manager in charge? The M’s current process for developing major league talent through their farm system goes something like this:

A) Draft or otherwise scout/acquire good, young, talented athletes

B) Put them in the farm system

C) Uber-promote them through the system.

D) Let them languish in Tacoma.

E) Promote them to Seattle, sit them on the bench.

F) Send back to Tacoma after extended bench warming, sometimes with a return trip back north for more seasoning on the bench.

G) Send them to winter ball, ensuring nearly 12 months a year of baseball, to work on things they should have been doing in Tacoma.

H) Repeat Step F the following season.

I) Lose or otherwise get rid of them.

J) Watch them develop into major league players with another club.

Apparently, we’re hoping Z-man will change that process?

hob on
November 6th, 2008 12:55 pm

There is a Dutch guy on my college team who played with Halman a good amount on the Jr. National team. He told me that Halman had a number of attitude problems in the past and that he faced legal troubles a number of times. Have there been any problems since he joined the M’s org?

On the relievers, it seems that the guys further from the majors rank higher – I canâ€™t think why Shawn Kelley would rank 1.5 wins ahead of Jimenez. Kelley is older and pitched mostly in AA, whereas Jimenez had a 3.60 FIP and a tRA+ of 105 in the AL. Is Kelley really about the equal of Josh Fields?

mark w – Kelley ranks higher because he’s more likely to become a high-leverage guy than Jimenez. I’d take Fields over Kelley, but I’d take the 22nd pick over Fields…

Are you concenred with Aumontâ€™s Canadian-ness? Canadian pitchers – maybe because they donâ€™t throw as much while theyâ€™re growing – seem to get injured at a much higher rate.

No. Pitchers in general get hurt. I’m not concerned in the slightest about Aumont being from north of the border and I actually like the fact that he didn’t have some jackass high school coach letting him throw 150 pitches.

About how close are we to declaring Mangini a bust? Unless heâ€™s got some slick glove work about him, I donâ€™t even know how you can project him as a 1.00 WAR possibility now.

I liked Mangini coming out of college, but yeah…he’s pretty much fallen on his face as a pro. He did ok in the Cal League, but struggled with Double A pitching and really needs to have a good year next year.

There is a Dutch guy on my college team who played with Halman a good amount on the Jr. National team. He told me that Halman had a number of attitude problems in the past and that he faced legal troubles a number of times. Have there been any problems since he joined the Mâ€™s org?

They have laws in the Netherlands? All kidding aside, I heard that Halman didn’t take to well to being demoted down to Everett a couple years ago, but he took it out on the pitchers and hasn’t looked back since. I don’t think there’s anything to worry about.

circlechange32 on
November 6th, 2008 3:54 pm

great work on the graphs guys… but when looking at them one thing struck me. the lower right hand corner is obviously the place where we’d like our prospects to be (and, as you’ve noted, the pitchers are a long way off) and there is a glaring hole in the graph in that corner. the graph makes it almost too real. maybe we should stick with tables that don’t lead to depression quite as easily.

“All kidding aside, I heard that Halman didnâ€™t take to well to being demoted down to Everett a couple years ago”

Might also be a reference to the broken hand he suffered in a brawl during his first stint in the NWL….

More on our relievers; it’s great to hear you think Kelley might be a high-leverage option down the road. I keep thinking Fister might be an option as well. With his move to the ‘pen in the AFL and his meh season as a starter, I’m guessing they may just move him next year – have him be a reliever full time. Any thoughts on the big guy?

AtomicGarden on
November 6th, 2008 4:34 pm

Thanks for all the work it took to put this together, very interesting insight. It’ll definitely be fun to watch the young position players that get a chance to contribute the next couple seasons.

This may be a feature and not a bug, but have you/Conor thought about how youâ€™d rank the 2.5 guys (Halman, De Jesus, Ramirez, Moore)?

Maybe I’m getting cranky in my old age, but more and more, I’m just having a hard time figuring out the usefulness of ranking things that are overall pretty similar. I guess I just don’t find hair splitting as much fun as I used to.

All of them have talent, all of them have flaws. If I could only have one, it’d probably be Halman, because even if he never learns pitch recognition, he’s got some value as a defensive replacement/pinch runner.

Also, what have you heard about Saundersâ€™ defense?

Passable in CF right now, probably not as he fills out. Most people see him as an RF.

More on our relievers; itâ€™s great to hear you think Kelley might be a high-leverage option down the road. I keep thinking Fister might be an option as well. With his move to the â€˜pen in the AFL and his meh season as a starter, Iâ€™m guessing they may just move him next year – have him be a reliever full time. Any thoughts on the big guy?

I’m a huge Fister fan…although it’s mostly irrational. I went to AquaSox opening day in 2006 and Fister immediately jumped out at me because he was on the top step the entire game cheering his teammates on. Granted, it’s probably because he doesn’t fit in the dugout, but I was drawn to him and have rooted for him ever since. His velo will play up in the bullpen and I think he could be useful. His ERA was ugly last year, but check this out:
Player A: 134 IP, 17.3 K% 7.5 BB%, 4.12 FIP
Player B: 108 IP, 17.8 K%, 9.2 BB%, 4.04 FIP

Player A is Doug Fister. Player B is Rays’ prospect Wade Davis. No doubt that Davis has better stuff (and he’s 19 months younger), but I just thought that was interesting.

Yeah, I’m a big Fister fan as well, in part because I think he might move really quickly as a reliever – kind of a Kam Mickolio type, albeit with less velo (though that may just be the 6’8″ thing).

Dave,

Fair enough.
I’m hoping Saunders really works at his defense next year; as I mentioned, it didn’t look so hot in his call-up. It may be a bit of a crowded field there, especially if Prentice Redman returns. Any word on that? Is he a free agent? If they need OF depth, they could do worse than resigning the guy.

robsols on
November 7th, 2008 7:19 am

Hob:

I can asure you that the things you player is referring to, were all bloated up by the local media.